Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider its best interest factors when setting a residential schedule and naming a primary residential parent.

James Henry Matthew Owens v. May · filed 2021-08-19(a)

When fashioning a permanent parenting plan, trial courts are required to “consider the factors listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a)(1)–(15) to ascertain the best interest of the child, in determining a residential schedule and naming a primary residential parent.” Sullivan v. Sullivan, No. M2018-01776-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 4899760, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2019) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-106(a) and -404(b)). ... Accordingly, we vacate the ruling and remand this matter to the trial court to issue sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the aforementioned statutory ... factors.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts crafting a permanent parenting plan to consider the statutory best interest factors.

Baker v. McSherry · filed 2022-03-31(a)

In the absence of a finding that the limitations in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-406 apply, a trial court’s goal is to craft a permanent parenting plan that promotes the child’s best interest, which requires consideration of the statutory best interest factors. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... Because there was no mention of the statutory best interest factors, we cannot determine which facts in the record may have prompted the court to fashion the plan as it did.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider the statutory best interest factors when setting a custody arrangement, including a permanent parenting plan.

Jensen v. Jensen · filed 2024-09-04(a)

Upon careful review, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Wife’s proposed PPP to be in the best interest of the Children or in finding that it would be in the Children’s best interest for Husband to participate in person in reunification therapy. ... The court is required to apply statutory best interest factors enumerated in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) to determine a custody arrangement in the best interest of the Child.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to maximize both parents’ participation in a child’s life consistent with the child’s best interest.

Lori Jean McKee Kelly v. Kelly · filed 2025-04-23(a)

The plan should “permit[] both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with the [best interest] factors.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... Here, the plan is consistent with the children’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires the court to consider the child’s best interest before entering a parenting plan, even when the parents agree to the plan.

In Re Gabby G. · filed 2025-08-13(a)

Even more importantly, Mother and Biological Father’s agreement did not obviate the need for the trial court to consider the child’s best interest before entering a parenting plan in this case.

The 2011 amendment to § 36-6-106(a) does not apply to a custody order entered before its June 6, 2011 effective date.

Hattaway v. Hattaway · filed 2012-05-16(a)

At oral argument, Husband cited a new statute amending Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) ... This statute did not take effect until June 6, 2011, and the final order in this case was issued in May 2011. Thus, the new statute does not apply here.

The 2013 amendment to § 36-6-106(a)(5) does not apply to a trial court order entered before it took effect.

Culbertson v. Culbertson · filed 2014-04-30(a)(5)

First and foremost, Mother’s argument ignores the fact that the amendment to Section 36-6- 106(a)(5) was not in effect when the trial court entered its July 23, 2012 order.

Section 36-6-106’s 2014 amendments took effect on July 1, 2014, so custody orders entered earlier are assessed under the prior version.

In Re: Tyler P. · filed 2015-01-27

The General Assembly amended Section 36-6-106 in 2014 to set out fifteen factors for courts to consider in making a best interests custody determination. ... Because the statutory revisions did not take effect until July 1, 2014, we apply the statute in effect when the trial court’s order was entered in January 2014.

Section 36-6-106(a) favors a parenting schedule that gives each parent the maximum time consistent with the child’s best interests.

Strickland v. Strickland · filed 2012-12-21(a)

... although not as much as Father, considering that Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) favors a parenting schedule that gives each parent the maximum amount of time in accordance with the child’s best interests.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires custody decisions to consider the child’s best interests, the parents’ residences, and the child’s need for stability when determining each parent’s time with the child.

Dhillon v. Dhillon · filed 2013-07-31(a)

Further, section 36-6-106(a) specifically states that the trial court’s determination must be consistent with the location of the parents and the child’s need for stability.

Section 36-6-106(a) calls for maximum possible parental participation, subject to the children’s best interests.

McCoy v. McCoy · filed 2013-11-04(a)

Husband argues that the legislature has mandated that he be allowed “maximum participation possible” in the lives of his children. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... We agree with Husband. The paramount concern in establishing a parenting plan is the best interest of the children. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-401(a). Our focus must be placed there. In order to encourage the development of Husband’s relationship with the children, we modify the parenting plan and award Husband two additional weeks of visitation in the summer.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a parenting plan to allow both parents maximum participation in their children’s lives, consistent with the child’s best interests.

Joe Houghland Hooper, III v. Amanda Marie Bures Hooper · filed 2014-04-25(a)

The law requires trial courts to develop a parenting plan which will allow both parents to have maximum participation in their children’s lives, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), and to encourage a “loving, stable and nurturing relationship” with both parents.

Section 36-6-106 directs courts making an initial custody determination to consider the child’s best interests and an arrangement that permits both parents maximum participation in the child’s life.

In Re Ra'niyah T. · filed 2014-09-05(a)

This is not the goal of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-106, which is to accomplish a visitation and custody arrangement “that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child.”

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to seek the maximum possible participation by each parent when setting a parenting schedule, consistent with the relevant facts and circumstances; it does not require equal parenting time.

Gooding v. Gooding · filed 2015-04-29(a)

The General Assembly has established the aspirational goal for the courts to craft custody arrangements that permit both párents to “enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child” consistent with the appropriate factors and circumstances. Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a custody arrangement that permits both parents the maximum participation possible consistent with the child’s best interests and need for stability.

In re Grace N. · filed 2015-05-14(a)

With the restrictions on Father‟s parenting time, it cannot be said that he is able to enjoy the “maximum participation possible” in his child‟s life. While the trial court‟s decision may contain reasons for rejecting Father‟s proposed week-on/week-off schedule, there is no justification in the record for the minimal amount of parenting time awarded to Father in the parenting plan adopted by the trial court.

Section 36-6-106(a) sets a goal of maximum participation by both parents, but a child’s best interests may justify substantially restricting a parent’s time.

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 2015-12-30(a)

Although the aspirational goal for the courts is to craft parenting plans that permit both parents to “enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child,” see Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), the facts in this case justify substantially restricting Father’s parenting time.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a parenting plan to permit each parent the maximum participation consistent with the child’s best interest.

Hopwood v. Hopwood · filed 2016-06-23(a)

In addition, Section 36-6-106(a) states that a court fashioning a parenting plan ―shall order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with‖ the child‘s best interest. ... Under these circumstances, we cannot fault the trial court for awarding Father only every other weekend and Wednesday night visitation with the children.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a custody arrangement that permits both parents the maximum participation possible, consistent with the child’s best interest, the parents’ residences, and the child’s need for stability.

Williamson v. Lamm · filed 2016-09-30(a)

In considering a child‟s best interest, the court must “order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with the [best interest] factors set out in this subsection (a), the location of the residences of the parents, the child‟s need for stability and all other relevant factors.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to maximize each parent’s participation in a child’s life only to the extent consistent with the child’s best interests.

In Re Piper H. · filed 2016-10-05(a)

The plain language of Section 36-6- 106(a) directs courts to order custody arrangements that allow each parent to enjoy the maximum possible participation in the child’s life only to the extent that doing so is consistent with the child’s best interests.

Section 36-6-106(a) calls for maximum possible participation by both parents only when that arrangement is consistent with the child’s best interests.

In Re Cannon H. · filed 2016-10-05(a)

The plain language of Section 36-6- 106(a) directs courts to order custody arrangements that allow each parent to enjoy the maximum possible participation in the child’s life only to the extent that doing so is consistent with the child’s best interests.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to order a custody arrangement that permits both parents the maximum participation possible in the child’s life.

Hart v. Hart · filed 2017-02-23(a)

As such, the trial court’s order in this case is not only unsupported by the evidence but also contravenes its directive under the child custody and visitation statute to “order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a parenting plan to permit each parent the maximum participation possible consistent with the child’s best interest and the statutory factors.

Neveau v. Neveau · filed 2017-06-07(a)

Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a) provides that, taking into account a child’s best interest, the trial court shall adopt a parenting plan that permits each parent to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the child’s life that is consistent with the factors set forth in the statute. ... We find that the evidence preponderates against a parenting plan that limits Father’s parenting time to only 66 days a year.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to maximize each parent’s participation in a child’s life when consistent with the child’s stability and other relevant factors; that directive can yield to other factors.

In Re: Maddox P. · filed 2017-01-17(a)

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a) (2014) instructs courts to “order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with the factors set out in this subsection (a), the location of the residences of the parents, the child’s need for stability and all other relevant factors.” This is not an ironclad rule, and may be superseded by other relevant factors, but, barring evidence to the contrary, our starting point is to proceed with an eye toward maximizing parenting time for each parent.

Section 36-6-106(a) calls for maximum participation by both parents consistent with the child’s best interest, but does not require equal parenting time.

Sturdivant v. Sturdivant · filed 2017-06-15(a)

The above rule, however, does not mandate that each parent receive equal time with the child when such a schedule would not serve the child’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a custody arrangement that gives both parents the maximum participation possible consistent with the child’s best interest and all relevant factors; it does not require equal parenting time.

Hindiyeh v. Waleed Fawzi Abed · filed 2018-04-25(a)

Given the evidence in the record on appeal, the Trial Court’s own findings, and the statutory goal of maximum participation for both parents in the life of the child, the Trial Court erred in granting Husband only 80 days per year with the Child.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to give both parents the maximum participation possible while considering the best-interest factors, where the parents live, and the child’s need for stability.

Bolin v. Bolin · filed 2018-04-26(a)

Courts are directed to fashion a parenting arrangement that allows “both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child” in accordance with the factors enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), “the location of the residences of the parents,” and “the child’s need for stability.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) calls for maximum parental participation consistent with the child’s best interest and the relevant statutory factors.

Iveson v. Iveson · filed 2019-03-18(a)

While Father correctly points out our General Assembly’s intent that both parents should enjoy maximum participation in their children’s lives, for this to occur it must be consistent with the other relevant best interest factors. The Trial Court made detailed findings in support of its best interest analysis. The Child’s preference rightly was afforded considerable weight by the Trial Court.

Section 36-6-106(a) calls for the maximum parental participation consistent with the child’s best interests; it does not require equal parenting time.

Flynn v. Stephenson · filed 2019-08-29(a)

Furthermore, we have stated that the “maximum participation possible” principle does not alter or diminish the trial court’s broad discretion in fashioning permanent parenting plans in accordance with the best interest of the child.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to maximize both parents’ participation in a parenting plan consistent with the child’s best interest, need for stability, parents’ residences, and other relevant factors.

In Re McKenzie Z. · filed 2018-03-27(a)

Our courts are directed to fashion a parenting plan “that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with the [statutory best interest] factors . . . , the location of the residences of the parents, the child’s need for stability and all other relevant factors.” Id. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a custody arrangement that permits both parents the maximum participation possible consistent with the child’s best interest and other relevant factors.

In Re Lennon R. · filed 2019-05-23(a)

As set out in context above, Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a), provides, in pertinent part, that “the [trial] court shall order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (a). ... From the totality of the circumstances and the history between the parties concerning their respective parenting time, the mere fact that the parties live in different counties is an insufficient reason to justify such a drastic limitation on Mother’s parenting time.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to maximize both parents’ participation in a child’s life while considering the child’s best interests, the parents’ residences, and the child’s need for stability; it does not require equal parenting time.

Poole v. Kinslow · filed 2019-11-05(a)

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2017). But the statute does not mandate equal parenting. Rather, it directs the court to maximize both parents’ participation in the child’s life “consistent with the [statutory best interest] factors . . . , the location of the residences of the parents, the child’s need for stability and all other relevant factors.” Id.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to allow maximum parental participation consistent with the child’s best interests, but does not create a preference for equal parenting time.

Rajendran v. Rajendran · filed 2020-09-16(a)

As such, the maximum participation “aspirational goal” cannot be read as a preference for equal parenting time that significantly alters this Court’s prior decisions on this issue.

Section 36-6-106(a) calls for maximum participation by both parents only insofar as it serves the child’s best interests.

Lindsley v. Lindsley · filed 2020-11-30(a)

Although the Tennessee Code no doubt now directs trial judges to “order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a), the polestar behind any parenting arrangement remains the best interests of the children impacted.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to permit both parents the maximum participation possible in a child’s life when the circumstances warrant it.

Davis v. Richard E. Davis, Jr. · filed 2021-10-13(a)

The trial court’s ruling of equal parenting time for the parties comports with our legislature’s directive to “order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the ... life of the child[ren]” as warranted by the factual circumstances of the case. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires custody arrangements to permit both parents the maximum participation possible, subject to the child’s best interest.

Slotnik v. Slotnik · filed 2022-06-07(a)

And the belief that a child of divorce should have a relationship with both parents is ingrained in our custody statute. Subject only to consideration of the child’s best interest, courts must “order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (2021).

Section 36-6-106(a)’s maximum participation directive does not require a change in primary residential parent merely because that parent works and receives help from a spouse when both parents have similar time to spend with the children.

L.A.S. v. C.W.H. · filed 2022-12-07(a)

For example, Mother cites Roland v. Roland, No. M2014-02032-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 5719833 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015), for the proposition that the juvenile court’s ruling does not “comply with the statutory directive that courts are to ‘order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child[.]’” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... Roland is distinguishable. Father and Mother both work five days a week and have substantially similar time to spend with the Children. Both necessarily rely on their partners to help co-parent and have other children to look after.

Section 36-6-106(a) permits less than equal parenting time when the child’s best interests support it, despite its direction to maximize each parent’s participation.

Powers v. Powers · filed 2021-04-07(a)

Considering Father’s assault of Mother in the presence of Child, we cannot say the trial court failed to “maximize” Father’s parenting time by ordering a schedule that permitted him 156 days per year with Child. Although several factors weighed equally in favor of Mother and Father, the trial court properly applied section 36-6-106(a) in determining the permanent parenting schedule.

Section 36-6-106 directs courts to base custody arrangements on the child’s best interest while allowing each parent the maximum participation consistent with that interest.

Mitchell v. Mitchell · filed 2022-08-02(a)

Instead, the focus of the best interest analysis is upon allowing the parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child in accordance with such child’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106(a) guides how courts modify a parenting schedule after a material change; its goal of maximum parental participation remains subject to the child’s best interests and does not require equal parenting time.

Heather Anne (Coats) Emch v. Edward Glen Emch, III · filed 2022-09-01(a)

As stated, the goal of § 36-6-106 “is to allow both parents to enjoy the ‘maximum participation possible’ in the lives of their children.” Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d at 707 (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)). This goal is subservient to the Child’s best interests, and it does not mean that parents will always receive equal parenting time.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to consider the child’s best interests and maximize each parent’s participation in the child’s life consistent with those interests.

Woody v. Woody · filed 2022-03-08(a)

In light of our consideration of the best interest factors and the statutory instruction to maximize each parent’s time, we also conclude that the trial court erred by failing to maximize Father’s parenting time.

Section 36-6-106(a)(2) does not support treating a parent’s withholding of a child before entry of a parenting order as a violation of court-ordered parenting arrangements.

Henry v. McCormack · filed 2022-07-21(a)(2)

We find the trial court’s application of Factor 2 troublesome when the statute itself directs consideration of the likelihood of each parent to adhere to court ordered parenting arrangements and any violation of a court order concerning those arrangements. The record reflects that Mother adhered to the parenting plan once entered and has not violated a court order. The court’s application of this factor was error.

Section 36-6-106(a) makes the child’s best interests the limit on each parent’s participation and does not require equal parenting time.

Samuel Randall Friedsam, III v. Krisle · filed 2022-08-25(a)

This provision does not, however, “mandate that the trial court establish a parenting schedule that provides equal parenting time[.]”

Section 36-6-106(a) calls for maximum parental participation only to the extent consistent with the child’s best interests.

McDonald v. Coffel · filed 2024-01-09(a)

Father is correct that Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) (Supp. 2022) directs courts to “order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child . . . .” ... The trial court acknowledged that a continued relationship with Father was in the Child’s best interest but properly balanced this interest against the evidence of Father’s domestic violence to determine that excluding overnight visitation from Father’s co-parenting time was in the Child’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106(a) does not require a trial court to expressly cite or discuss maximum parental participation when its best interest analysis explains the parenting schedule.

Hunter v. Cooper · filed 2024-10-30(a)

The same principle applies here: a trial court’s failure to cite or discuss the requirement to maximize parenting time does not mean that the requirement was not considered.

Section 36-6-106(a) permits unequal parenting time when the child’s best interests support it, despite the goal of maximizing each parent’s participation.

VELENA MARIA RAMIREZ STIERLE v. VALLVEY · filed 2025-04-08(a)

Contrary to Mother’s assertion, the trial court expressly applied the facts to the relevant statutory provisions and concluded that the modified PPP, which afforded Father more days annually with the Child and named Father as primary residential parent, would be in the Child’s best interest. For these reasons, Mother’s postulate that the trial court failed to maximize her co-parenting time is unavailing.

Section 36-6-106(a) makes maximum parental participation an aspirational goal, subject to the child’s best interests and the circumstances.

In Re Adalynn B. · filed 2025-06-11(a)

As it pertains to Father’s argument that the trial court failed to maximize his parenting time, we note that the General Assembly established the aspirational goal for the courts to craft custody arrangements that permit both parents to “enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with the appropriate factors and circumstances.” Gooding v. Gooding, 477 S.W.3d at 778 (emphasis added) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)). However, this goal is aspirational, not mandatory. Considering the appropriate best interest factors and circumstances applicable to this case, we find no abuse of discretion with the parenting schedule crafted by the trial court or its decision to name Mother the primary residential parent.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires a custody arrangement that permits each parent the maximum participation consistent with the child’s best interests; it does not require equal parenting time.

Teshale v. Lanexang · filed 2026-01-06(a)

We find both contentions unpersuasive because the magistrate’s order expressly states that the magistrate considered Tahj’s testimony, § 36-6-106(a) does not mandate equal parenting time, and the 2024 plan gives Father more parenting time with the Children than the 2013 plan.

Section 36-6-106(a) calls for the maximum parenting time possible in the child’s best interest, but its best interest factors need not be applied when § 36-6-406 controls the residential schedule.

Duffer v. Duffer · filed 2024-03-08(a)

In furtherance of this principle, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) requires a court to “order a custody arrangement that permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child” based on what is in the child’s best interest. ... And, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-404(b) provides that courts do not have to apply the best interest factors for maximizing parenting time in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(1)-(15) “[i]f the limitations of § 36-6-406 are . . . dispositive of the child’s residential schedule.”

Section 36-6-106 does not require a court to specifically reference its best interest factors when temporarily suspending parenting time after considering the child’s best interest.

In Re: Kendin L. · filed 2025-03-13

We, accordingly, discern no error in the Juvenile Court’s decision to suspend Mother’s parenting time without specific reference to the best interest factors outlined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106. The Juvenile Court’s action was not a modification but rather a temporary suspension of Mother’s parenting time in response to a motion for injunctive relief.

Section 36-6-106(a) directs courts to arrange custody in the child’s best interest while allowing both parents the maximum participation consistent with the statutory factors.

Addis v. Addis · filed 2025-07-15(a)

It permits the children to see both parents for the celebration of various holidays and their birthdays which is in accordance with the General Assembly’s instruction that a parenting arrangement shall be determined which “permits both parents to enjoy the maximum participation possible in the life of the child consistent with the factors set out in this subsection.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106(a)(2) requires courts assessing a child’s best interests to consider a parent’s history of denying parenting time in violation of a court order.

Ford v. April Corrine Ford · filed 2026-01-16(a)(2)

Indeed, in considering the best interest of the children, the trial court was required to “consider any history of either parent . . . denying parenting time to either parent in violation of a court order[.]” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(2).

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to determine a child’s best interests independently when a surrogacy contract addresses custody; the contract does not bind the court.

In Re Baby · filed 2014-09-18(a)

Accordingly, when faced with a surrogacy contract containing terms regarding the best interests of a child, courts should determine the best interests of the child as required by section 36-6-106(a) and, if possible, enforce the remainder of the contract.

Section 36-6-106 permits a custody court to obtain information from a prior DCS investigation and requires the court to consider it when determining the child’s best interest.

Tina Dawn Garner v. Garner · filed 2016-08-10

Under the statute, therefore, we must assume that any trial judge assigned to adjudicate the divorce of Mr. and Mrs. Garner will have access to the information obtained by DCS in its previous investigation. Given the impact of this newly enacted legislation, we cannot conclude that Judge Smith‟s impartiality can reasonably be questioned because he has knowledge of the evidence and information adduced during DCS‟s previous investigation.

Section 36-6-106(a) governs an initial custody decision involving a proposed relocation; the court considers the move as part of the child’s best interest analysis.

Jana Lea Purvis v. Dennis Patrick Purvis, II · filed 2018-05-22(a)

The governing statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106, provides as follows, in pertinent part: ... (a) In a suit for annulment, divorce, separate maintenance, or in any other proceeding requiring the court to make a custody determination regarding a minor child, the determination shall be made on the basis of the best interest of the child. ... The evidence does not preponderate against these findings of the trial court.

Section 36-6-106(a)(14) makes each parent’s employment schedule relevant to the best interest analysis in a relocation case.

Fichtel v. Jill Crowell Fichtel (Zirwas) · filed 2019-07-10(a)(14)

The trial court essentially stated that this would be considered only with regard to a visitation schedule, rather than a relocation. Respectfully, we disagree. Here, the Tennessee General Assembly has specifically stated the factors that are relevant in a relocation case. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(c) (stating that the trial court “shall consider all relevant factors including those factors found in § 36-6-106(a)(1)–(15)”). Among those factors is each parent’s employment schedule. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(14).

Section 36-6-106(a)’s best-interest factors apply when awarding guardianship under § 36-1-113(m).

In Re Alexis S. · filed 2019-10-29(a)

Likewise, we find the analysis in § 36-6-106 is appropriate for awarding guardianship under § 36-1-113(m). ... Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a) provides fifteen factors for the court to consider when determining the child’s best interest.

Section 36-6-106 supplies best interest factors for custody determinations, but its factors do not govern termination of parental rights.

In Re Layton W. · filed 2020-10-06(a)

Although the determination a trial court makes under section 36-6-106 also hinges “upon the best interest of the child,” the best interests factors the trial court must consider in a termination proceeding are set forth in section 36-1-113(i). Because the trial court’s conclusions as to the Child’s best interests do not satisfy the analysis mandated by statute, we vacate those conclusions and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to address the pertinent best interests factors as they apply to the facts of this case.

Section 36-6-106(a) provides best interest factors for custody determinations, not for termination of parental rights.

IN RE ELLA H. · filed 2021-01-13(a)

As an initial matter, we note that the trial court applied the incorrect statute in its best interest analysis. The statutory factors applicable to best interest in the context of termination of parental rights cases are codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36- 1-113(i). Here, however, the trial court applied the factors set out at Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a), which apply “[i]n a suit for annulment, divorce, separate maintenance, or in any other proceeding requiring the court to make a custody determination regarding a minor child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a).

Section 36-6-106’s best interest factors apply to custody determinations and do not govern termination of parental rights.

In Re Daylan D. · filed 2021-11-09

Father cites the best interest factors that are applicable to a custody decision, rather than a case involving termination of parental rights. Compare Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i) (involving termination of parental rights), with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106 (involving custody in “suit for annulment, divorce, separate maintenance, or in any other proceeding requiring the court to make a custody determination regarding a minor child”).

Section 36-6-106(a) authorizes custody and visitation for a parent; a person who does not qualify as a parent lacks standing to seek those rights.

Cedra Deanntre Potts (Taylor) v. Potts · filed 2021-06-02(a)

Clearly, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-6-101 and -106 grant the court the power to award custody and visitation and associated rights to a parent of the children; therefore, “the issue of standing is interwoven with that of subject matter jurisdiction and becomes a jurisdictional prerequisite.” Osborn, 127 S.W.3d at 740. As such, if Defendant did not fit the statutory definition of “parent,” she did not have standing to pursue her claims and, accordingly, the court did not have jurisdiction to grant visitation.

Section 36-6-106(a)’s best interest factors may be used to compare competing adoption petitioners when neither has an existing guardianship.

In Re Lyric N. · filed 2022-07-29(a)

Inasmuch as the instant action involves competing adoption petitions with neither petitioner having an existing guardianship in effect, we determine that the trial court properly applied a comparative fitness analysis utilizing the best interest factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-106(a).

In a competing adoption case, the factor concerning a parent’s willingness to support the child’s relationship with the other parent may receive little or no weight when the petitioners are extended family members.

In Re A'Jayi A. · filed 2024-05-09(a)(2)

The court found this factor had less relevance outside the context of a custody dispute between two legal parents. So it gave this factor little or no weight. We cannot fault the court’s reasoning. Extended family members do not occupy the same status as legal parents.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts deciding whether to modify custody to consider all relevant best interest factors.

Paden v. Davison · filed 2024-06-25(a)

When making this determination, the custody statute requires that the court “shall consider all relevant factors” and lists the factors that should be considered. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). “The word ‘shall’ places a mandatory duty on trial courts to consider these factors.”

A parent’s willingness to encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent is a best interest factor that may receive more weight than the parent’s role as primary caregiver.

Tankard v. Benjamin Lee Tankard, II · filed 2024-08-28(a)(2)

Mother also contends that the court’s ruling “is not well grounded upon the statutory factors.” We disagree. In the court’s view, the children needed the involvement of both parents “to the maximum extent possible.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a)(7). Mother and Father were both “good, active, and involved parents.” Id. § 36-6-106(a)(1), (4). Although Mother was the children’s primary caregiver, the court did not place much weight on that factor. Id. § 36-6-106(a)(5). The court attached more weight to the differences in the two parents’ “willingness and ability . . . to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child[ren] and both of the child[ren]’s parents.” Id. § 36-6-106(a)(2). For well over a year, Mother thwarted Father’s efforts to spend time with his children. She even limited his phone contact.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider statutory best interest factors when deciding whether to modify a parenting plan.

Thompson v. Thompson · filed 2024-11-26(a)

Mother suggests that the court abused its discretion in weighing the best interest factors. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a). ... The court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning a modified parenting plan.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider applicable best interest factors when deciding custody; abuse in a parent’s home may receive particular weight.

Natasha C. v. Dustin C. · filed 2025-01-21(a)

Thus, the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings that the majority of the best interest factors favored naming Father primary residential parent or that the abuse that occurred in Mother’s home should be given particular weight. We therefore cannot conclude that the trial court erred in naming Father primary residential parent and awarding him the majority of the time with the children.

Section 36-6-106(a)’s best interest factors can support a change of custody when a parent has withheld the child from the other parent.

Brandy Leigh Frame Taylor (now Tipper) v. Taylor · filed 2025-03-24(a)

Upon a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s findings of fact and that the trial court properly analyzed the best interest factors in light of the unique circumstances of this case and concluded that a ... change of custody was necessary to ensure that Mother did not continue withholding the Child from Father.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to consider the child’s best interest factors when determining a residential parenting schedule.

Mejia v. Leone · filed 2025-03-25(a)

With all of the above considerations in mind, we conclude that the trial court conducted a proper best interest analysis pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a) and that the evidence does not preponderate against those findings.

Section 36-6-106(a) requires courts to base custody determinations in removal and termination proceedings on the child’s best interest.

In Re Scarlett F. · filed 2022-09-16(a)

Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106, a statute governing child custody, provides that, “[i]n a suit for annulment, divorce, separate maintenance, or in any other proceeding requiring the court to make a custody determination regarding a minor child, the determination shall be made on the basis of the best interest of the child.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-106(a) (emphasis added). Removal and termination proceedings require courts to make custody determinations regarding minor children. Ergo, the child’s best interest is also paramount in such proceedings.

Section 36-6-106(a)(9) treats sibling relationships as a best interest factor, but the preference to keep siblings together yields when other considerations favor separation.

Bumbalough v. Hall · filed 2023-07-07(a)(9)

However, while there is a presumption against separating siblings, this principle must give way to other considerations if the best interest of a child so dictates.

Section 36-6-106(a)(9) concerns the child’s interactions with siblings and relatives, not a parent’s interactions with them.

Harold C. Bowden, IV v. Amber Crutcher · filed 2025-02-21(a)(9)

The trial court found that this factor favored Father because Mother had driven “a wedge” between Father and his daughter. Respectfully, this factor concerns the child’s interactions with half-siblings, not Mother’s interactions. Therefore, we find that this factor is equal as to both parents.

Section 36-6-106(a)’s best interest factors need not be considered when limitations under section 36-6-406 are sufficient to decide custody and visitation.

Cooper v. Cooper · filed 2024-07-22(a)

Thus, if limitations under section 36-6-406 related to these issues are sufficient to decide the issue of custody and visitation, then the trial court is not required to consider section 36-6-106’s best interest factors in any manner.